"If you leave us in peace, we will do you no harm. If you wish to join us, we will set a chair at our table and work to our mutual benefit. If you work against us, we will have no choice but to retaliate."

Scarab wrote:We are starting to have BIG problems with communciation here. I don't think I like where it's going... I'm sure nobody needs to be reminded that we're worrying about the fate of the world here.

Quoting this because it bears repeating. We're a hivemind and a team, all working towards the same goal - protecting our reality. If we can't trust each other, or keep each other in the dark, then we're only going to hurt ourselves.

Scarab wrote:We are starting to have BIG problems with communciation here. I don't think I like where it's going... I'm sure nobody needs to be reminded that we're worrying about the fate of the world here.

Quoting this because it bears repeating. We're a hivemind and a team, all working towards the same goal - protecting our reality. If we can't trust each other, or keep each other in the dark, then we're only going to hurt ourselves.

I think, to some extent, part of this ARG has ALWAYS been that the 'characters' simply cannot communicate. However, hat happens niw is not like not knowing what Holmes is on aout or A being obstructive. This is about two people who are admittedly GMs but also founded, runand administer the whole forum, website, everything. Joe is basically why we're all here. We don't careeif the explaination's irrational; we won't judge. We will get an experimental piece; no-one should dissuade us froom that. But answers could change the game, especially when dealing with the Cabal. I said earlier Joe was the reason we're here;if he's lying there is a whole new complexion. I have to say, though, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION. Why is this a Broken Base thing? Itas nothing to do with us. I think we're now kind of freaking out for the sake of freaking out.

In life, he suffered from a sense of unreality, as do many Englishmen.

Ok, this originated in a little argument with Wacky in the chat, so I should mention it.

This is about the Cabal and their inaction.They say "we'll do anything to protect ourselves", and yet they want us to get the wall pieces for them, and Morgana made it clear that they aren't going to go after them, because their jobs are in the way. Seriously? "I won't fight this giant world-destroying monster, I have a haircut at 10 o'clock".

Wacky said that I shouldn't worry about it because of meta and Hand Wave. I say it's too much of a thing to handwave, because it breaks their primary motivation, and, because of that, Suspension Of Disbelief. That makes it hard to have moral dilemmas about them. Not to mention that all our paranoia and planning turned out to be unnecessary.

I'm not asking them to go and get the pieces now. Especially considering that getting them now, when we have agreed that they are not touching them for meta reasons and published their locations, would be a giant dick move from the GMs. I guess I'm just ranting.

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

Hmmm. You could say-- if we ignore all the meta-- that part of the reason the Cabal want us to get them is to PUT us in a more morally-compromising position-- to break our base so that A will have less sway over us.

And yes, that would be a huge jerk move on the part of the Cabal, which is why I'm the one bringing it up.

(to clarify: I'm suggesting that they're perfectly capable and ready to get the wall pieces themselves, but they'd rather give us the impression that they can't, so they can "force" us to get them for them, causing a rift between those of us who think it's a good idea and those of us who think it's terrible.)

Why are we even arguing about a dead fictional dude and hypothetical ninjas?

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Hmmm. You could say-- if we ignore all the meta-- that part of the reason the Cabal want us to get them is to PUT us in a more morally-compromising position-- to break our base so that A will have less sway over us.

Well, let's look at it this way:Morgan la Fey - Seduced her own brother. Seduced Merlin. Raised her son to kill his father. Gains advantage in each situation by manipulation of others. (And sex appeal, mustn't forget that.)Erik - Manipulated Christine by using her fond memories of her father. Killed anyone who talked too much, or happened to be in the line of fire.Don Juan - Seduced married women by telling them what he knew they wanted to hear.Moriarty - Frequently worked from the shadows. Responsible for several criminal endeavors, each of which apparently independent. Had no compunctions about sacrificing anyone under him in those endeavors in order to get away.

And, lastly and most recently...

Long John Silver - Played the part of a cook in order to insert himself into the crew of the ship going to Treasure Island. Managed to get the old crew together under false pretenses in order to ensure people loyal to him would be on hand to mutiny when the time was right. Manipulated Jim throughout the voyage so that the boy would view him as a friend. (Regardless of how he felt about Jim by the end of the story, that was his goal from the outset.)

I'll be frank here. It doesn't matter how likable they are. It doesn't matter how desperate they claim their situation is. Morgana says that in this world she is free to not be a villain. That doesn't mean she isn't one. The fact is that these characters can only be who they were written to be. If, for example, Moriarty decided he didn't want to be a criminal mastermind anymore... well, Criminal Mastermind is the ENTIRETY of who and what Moriarty is. If he succeeded at moving past that, he wouldn't be Moriarty the Character anymore. But I don't think it's possible for the Cabal to stop being who they are. If it were possible, their presence on this side of the Wall wouldn't be a problem, as in time there wouldn't be any fictives on this side of the wall.

Just ex-fictives.

But all of that aside, the common theme in each of these characters is that they manipulate people. That is who they are and what they do.

But soft! What rock through yonder window breaks? It is a brick! And Juliet is out cold!Man, I'm really glad R&J got refic'd before I added this signature.

BlackWolfe wrote:The fact is that these characters can only be who they were written to be. If, for example, Moriarty decided he didn't want to be a criminal mastermind anymore... well, Criminal Mastermind is the ENTIRETY of who and what Moriarty is. If he succeeded at moving past that, he wouldn't be Moriarty the Character anymore. But I don't think it's possible for the Cabal to stop being who they are.

I'll disagree for a change. It is possible for a character to change - you know, just like for every human, which they are now - but it's not something that's done on a whim ("Oh wow, I can totally NOT be a villain - I guess I won't be one!"). Changing oneself takes years. While I agree that they have a chance to change in our world, it would take them too long - far longer than the Cosmic Deadline allows.

I'll put it shorter. Making a character means writing his choices. Being free, the characters can make their own choices, based on their current character. The problem is, they all started as villains, and thus making abrupt changes in character simply wouldn't make sense. That's not how people's minds work.

And seriously, if they turn out to be geniunely good all along, I'll call bullshit on GMs. Onthological Inertia is a thing here.

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

BlackWolfe wrote:The fact is that these characters can only be who they were written to be. If, for example, Moriarty decided he didn't want to be a criminal mastermind anymore... well, Criminal Mastermind is the ENTIRETY of who and what Moriarty is. If he succeeded at moving past that, he wouldn't be Moriarty the Character anymore. But I don't think it's possible for the Cabal to stop being who they are.

I'll disagree for a change. It is possible for a character to change - you know, just like for every human, which they are now - but it's not something that's done on a whim ("Oh wow, I can totally NOT be a villain - I guess I won't be one!"). Changing oneself takes years. While I agree that they have a chance to change in our world, it would take them too long - far longer than the Cosmic Deadline allows.

There's always Epiphany Therapy. That may seem unbelievable, but if someone is written to be a villain, as in, set up to be, by their parents, their mentors, their authors, and then shown a different path, it might not take years to change, given the right circumstances. There are real-life examples of people changing pretty drastically when their situation goes from being oppressive and horrible to something that better fits who they are, and gives them a chance to grow.

It really depends on the person in question, and also what they want, what drives them, consciously and unconsciously. Arguably, Morgana and Don Juan are of a different class than the other two, given that they have not gone around killing people to achieve diabolical plans. Who are they, really, though? Either they, or the Powers That Be, aren't letting out a great deal of characterization. As each day passes, what is Morgana doing? Biting her nails? Planning her future life here? Surfing Youtube? Frozen in time?

The more these characters come across as Flat Characters, the harder it is to relate to their plight, or their potential. As Tom put it in EC: Freudian Excuse, "watch as my hatred turns to pity." I would bet that many metaguards don't even feel those things about these characters, let alone perceiving a fully fleshed out being, as if the fictional had transformed into a real person in the real world.

Dryunya wrote:I'll put it shorter. Making a character means writing his choices. Being free, the characters can make their own choices, based on their current character. The problem is, they all started as villains, and thus making abrupt changes in character simply wouldn't make sense. That's not how people's minds work.

This is a good point, which I want to give some more thought to. Abrupt changes don't make sense unless there is a reasonable explanation. The question of how people's minds work is a good one. Many fictional characters are relatively flat, especially before modern long-arc television. Even in the most sophisticated novels, how much can they change, and why? Arguably, in the modern world, there are more ways to change, more quickly, such as appearing on a Makeover Reality show, or finding the community of your dreams via the Internet. Have these characters been surfing the internet? Are they seeing a therapist? Might we introduce them to such things? Are they becoming more human, as they interact with us?

Morgana, at least, seems to already be in the process of changing. She's the only one of them I've gotten to know in any depth, as opposed to reading summary lists of bad actions. I'm not sure how much this is a matter of what I haven't read, or how much they haven't been fleshed out, but it might put a spin on the situation. And again, in a world where everyone engages in seduction and manipulation, are these acts of villainy on the same level as running around killing people?

Dryunya wrote:And seriously, if they turn out to be geniunely good all along, I'll call bullshit on GMs. Onthological Inertia is a thing here.

I imagine it's not a matter of them being "genuinely good" all along, but perhaps they've been more complex than the black-and-white view that Mr. A has pushed. And Mr. A himself seems to have gone through some character evolution. He's mentored and guided us, and there's clearly more personality to him, or at least his instantiations, than his creepy videos. That takes some of the edge off the intimidating videos, but adds a dimension of empathy, as well. But with empathy, comes the realization of fallibility, especially in such a strange character as Mr. A and his squabbling instantiations. (And to make matters worse, Mr. A made a creepy claim about what he does to instantiations he deems "special:" https://twitter.com/YouHaveFailedUs/status/278270078934474752)

And that hits on a key point, the weight being put on Morgana vs. Reality, based on Mr. A's claims. I think more digging could be done into Mr. A's nature, however ill-advised that might have seemed in the past. After all, it's not Mr. A that decides whether reality stays or goes, is it? On some level, it's the laws of physics, or the selections of a deity higher up the ladder than A.

Guys I have a proposition on how to handle the Cabal once the first of them is refic'd. Basically I predict that once someone like Don Juan gets put back the other members of the Cabal will band together in one last attempt to stop us by trying to take the remaining wall pieces which there are two of. One already has pictures with which it could be scanned and the other is unfound near my location.

Laconic: Once the first of them gets refic'd they may become desperate to seal the wall and take it upon them selves to steal the wall pieces

I basically convince Mr. A to give me the wall piece's location in return for protecting it from the Cabal.

What do you guys think?(Meta: Fine this is a cheap attempt at finding my wall piece but at least I'm thinking of what the Cabal's actions are after one of them gets refic'd.)

Last edited by JRPictures on Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Are we so arrogant as to delude ourselves that we may get the echoes from him under false pretenses and then send him refictionalize him for the sake of principle? Is this justice?!

Do forgive my concern, but at the time refictionalization was not available and we were contemplating throwing him in jail. And in experience I have found that not all criminals are so by their natural malice; some are so by their folly, which can be remedied. In one case, so termed by my partner as the Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle, a spared an ass of a man named James Ryder knowing that jail would have only made him a hardened criminal by experience. Is not some Christian mercy apt to be given every once in a while, Mr. Poirot? Especially in this merry season?

This. Completely. This.

In life, he suffered from a sense of unreality, as do many Englishmen.

I don't think we're doing the right thing sending them back. I never have, whether they're good guys or not. I'd like to be the person who believes we can do the right thing, I'd like to be the person who can give us another way out, and I'm still trying to think of that way. But maybe sometimes there is no real good or right choices.

If the world were NOT at stake, and it were just me at risk if the Cabal stayed? I'd... like to think I'd be a better person (dunno if I would, in fairness, I've never been asked to sacrifice my life before). But while we may not have the right to send them back, nor do we have the right to decide the fates of every living being on planet earth based on a THEORY, and that is a risk we would be taking by letting them stay.

My morality and wishes may be more important to me than my life, but it's not more important than other peoples , and neither are theirs. Nobody should have to die for someone else's theories or beliefs or attitudes. All I can do is be there for the people I call friends whether I agree with them all or not. In the end that's all any of us can do.

I just hope we don't come out of all this at the end hating each other. That's the one thing I really could not take.

They sometimes say, "the place where I am right now was circled on a map for me"... Unfortunately, I kind of suck at orienteering.

Scarab, I'm trying to think of a way, too. Many of the characters have already been sent back, voluntarily. When it comes to those that do not wish to go voluntarily, and as the end approaches, the Plot Thickens, to use one of Sherlock Holmes' signature phrases.

I'm beginning to doubt that the world is at stake in the way Mr. A assumes, simply due to the presence of some fictionals. There may be complications of their presence that are worth addressing, but the main problem Mr. A refers to is fourth wall instability. Some walls exist with passageways that allow for transit, that don't violate their structural integrity, for example. Some walls between worlds, or countries, or properties, are purely a matter of convention and laws, and people (for the most part) agree to certain rules for passing back and forth (permission, passports, etc.)

When it comes to looking at the Cabal as vile and/or dangerous, I think it makes sense to look at them individually, and, if at all possible, interact with them, get their side of things, and get some more details of their situation, a bit like what might go on in a hearing or journalistic investigation. Such interaction is already occurring with Morgan, and I've caught up on those exchanges. I see a real character with a real situation, rather than a plot device to be solved for the quickest possible plot resolution. That "quickest fix" approach reminds me of psychiatrists that spend 15 minutes with a case, apply some simplistic evaluation and rules, and move on, without delving deeper to the person's actual background and circumstances, and potential futures that their diagnosis or punishment/treatment/solution will feed into.

Scarab wrote:But while we may not have the right to send them back, nor do we have the right to decide the fates of every living being on planet earth based on a THEORY, and that is a risk we would be taking by letting them stay.

This raises a key set of points, including about *rights,* and the question of *deciding fates* of individuals or populations. There's a lot to say on that matter, but at this point in the story, any extended discussion seems to be avoided in favor of any uncontroversial topic or game, partly under the assumption that there's no way to discuss these things amicably or productively.

Regardless of the wall issue, and certainly regardless of the fictionals, there are *many* risks to the population at large, that Mr. A and others may be discounting in favor of a wild theory. Again, Mr. A's claims have been elevated to the level of assumed truth, and used as premises for arguments, despite underlying disagreement, because it makes the decision calculus simpler and avoids bitter disagreements that everyone's looking to keep buried (until the last minute, or until they get dug up by the plot itself.)

Scarab wrote:Nobody should have to die for someone else's theories or beliefs or attitudes. All I can do is be there for the people I call friends whether I agree with them all or not. In the end that's all any of us can do.

I just hope we don't come out of all this at the end hating each other. That's the one thing I really could not take.

I very much hope the same thing. I also truly believe there are ways to discuss these things that don't result in bitter fighting, if people are willing to think of this as a *learning opportunity* and learn to shift in and out of suspension of disbelief more actively. There are ways of having discussions that avoid strife if people's underlying interests can be identified, personally and in terms of the world they're trying to influence.

In real life, I've encountered so many situations where people decide that communication is the enemy, that it will only tear people apart, that there's nothing to be learned or gained from sitting around the "fire of truth" and sharing stories, perspectives, hopes and dreams, fears and vulnerabilities. Instead, far too often, rather than believing in the stuff of Character Development, people run from it, ignore it, devise theories claiming its improbability, and make rules and Insurmountable Waist High Fences to keep people from it -- anything to keep the trope Ignored Epiphany alive and well. Then, the only place to turn to deal with human problems, short of violence and meltdowns and blowups and breakdowns, are Draconian laws and prisons, and 15-minute-session psychiatrists who think only in terms of disorders, and nobody ever gains a deeper understanding of themselves, or the people they're trying to help.

Even if this is "just a game," it has the potential to be more than that, if you let it be. TV Tropes, for many, is more than a wiki of random trivia, it's more than about the world of fiction, it's about narrative structure, about personality, about situations and decisions, and about life itself. Tropers apply trope to each other and to themselves for a reason!

"I think one of the things we've learned in the last decade or so, is that apart from interests, negotiations often involve people's sense of identity. And, my own view is that we all have multiple identities. I have an identity of someone who went to college in the 60's, I have an identity as someone who grew up in Missouri, I have an identity as an academic, I have an identity as a lawyer, etc.. So, we all have multiple prisms. But, I think the issue of how identities are formed, how they're transformed and changed is terribly important, particularly given the number of ethnic conflicts we have in the world."

Ethnic conflicts are, among other things, population-level conflicts. And any population consists of a range of individuals -- unless, of course, it's a Planet of Hats made out of Alike and Antithetical Adversaries. It's so much easier to value or devalue whole groups at a time, or one individual at at time, but bridging those perspectives is tough. As I see it, the moral issues here aren't just about a few characters who happen to be stuck in unfortunate situations, but about how "the good of the population" is waved around in combination with "the badness of the individual" to wiggle through the moral challenges involved, particularly with Morgan raising the question of her freedom, in this narrative world, or back in the land of fiction.

Anyone want to try discussing any of this stuff? The role of stories in discovering who we are, and who we can become? If nothing else, it could lead to more effective stories for Morgan and the remaining fictionals, whichever world they're said to inhabit.

Okay, I'm not interested in pointlessly furthering the who-is-right-A-or-the-Cabal debate, because as things currently stand, it's all been said. Here, however, is something that HASN'T been said:

screenstorming wrote:That "quickest fix" approach reminds me of psychiatrists that spend 15 minutes with a case, apply some simplistic evaluation and rules, and move on, without delving deeper to the person's actual background and circumstances, and potential futures that their diagnosis or punishment/treatment/solution will feed into.

Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Do you have any background knowledge of the field of psychiatry? Because that is NOT WHAT PSYCHIATRISTS DO. Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. FIRST of all, a psychiatrist's first meeting with a new patient is generally longer than the average appointment, and spent entirely or mostly getting THE PATIENT'S BACKGROUND. Not to mention all the records of previous psychiatric history that the doctor will have seen, and READ, before that appointment. Psychiatrists do not apply "simplistic evaluations" any more than oncologists apply "simplistic evaluations". Psychiatry is not about "treating" symptoms, and not necessarily "solving" problems, and I don't know how the HELL you can think it's about "punishing"... ANYTHING. what is this i don't even.

Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. They HELP people. PROPERLY. Sometimes with medication, sometimes with CBT or other types of therapy, sometimes just by listening and giving advice. But ALWAYS with proper understanding and knowledge of the situation. Because they're doctors, and that's what doctors have to do.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Do you have any background knowledge of the field of psychiatry? Because that is NOT WHAT PSYCHIATRISTS DO. Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. FIRST of all, a psychiatrist's first meeting with a new patient is generally longer than the average appointment, and spent entirely or mostly getting THE PATIENT'S BACKGROUND. Not to mention all the records of previous psychiatric history that the doctor will have seen, and READ, before that appointment. Psychiatrists do not apply "simplistic evaluations" any more than oncologists apply "simplistic evaluations". Psychiatry is not about "treating" symptoms, and not necessarily "solving" problems, and I don't know how the HELL you can think it's about "punishing"... ANYTHING. what is this i don't even.

Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. They HELP people. PROPERLY. Sometimes with medication, sometimes with CBT or other types of therapy, sometimes just by listening and giving advice. But ALWAYS with proper understanding and knowledge of the situation. Because they're doctors, and that's what doctors have to do.

Yeah, this is off topic, but I sympathize with Screen here. The psychiatrist I went to visit was not like that at all. I went in, she talked with me for like ten minutes, prescribed some pills, sent me a bill, and sent me on my way. Perhaps that's what I get for going for psychiatry help at my school's health center, or maybe they just do things differently up there in Qanada. But please don't get angry at me. I'm only sharing my experience. I'm sure the psychiatrist in your family is very good at that job and not at all like the psychiatrists me and Screen have in mind.

If everyone would just agree with me, there would never be any problems.

First, Wacky (and Screen), seriously, that's not how a therapist should work. If yours was like this, he's incompetent as hell.

screenstorming wrote:There's always Epiphany Therapy. That may seem unbelievable, but if someone is written to be a villain, as in, set up to be, by their parents, their mentors, their authors, and then shown a different path, it might not take years to change, given the right circumstances. There are real-life examples of people changing pretty drastically when their situation goes from being oppressive and horrible to something that better fits who they are, and gives them a chance to grow.

I actually considered including that trope into my argument. Did you even read it? It is explicitly pointed out to be a trope, which rarely works IRL. Of course, there are unique cases, but what are the chances to stumble upon one?

screenstorming wrote:Regardless of the wall issue, and certainly regardless of the fictionals, there are *many* risks to the population at large, that Mr. A and others may be discounting in favor of a wild theory. Again, Mr. A's claims have been elevated to the level of assumed truth, and used as premises for arguments, despite underlying disagreement, because it makes the decision calculus simpler and avoids bitter disagreements that everyone's looking to keep buried (until the last minute, or until they get dug up by the plot itself.)

Dude, I know weren't here from the beginning, but if you paid attention, those "bitter disagreements" have been discussed to no end. There's no Elephant In The Living Room. The problem is simple: Mr. A says that not restoring the Status Quo may have disastrous consequences, but he knows nothing more because of lack in data (seriously, how often do you experience situations like this?). He tried to find proof (and so did we - we even tried to ask the Cabal to help, but that didn't stick), and he failed. We have nothing but his premonitions, that's the GMs' position. Period.And yes, I'm basing my reasoning on his words, because of mathematical risk evaluation. I won't go over this again.

JRPictures wrote:I basically convince Mr. A to give me the wall piece's location in return for protecting it from the Cabal.

What do you guys think?(Meta: Fine this is a cheap attempt at finding my wall piece but at least I'm thinking of what the Cabal's actions are after one of them gets refic'd.)

Looks like it didn't work out. I am worried about the Cabal's actions too, but I've given up trying to predict them. The Meta is strong with this one. Trying to apply actual reasoning here only leads to frustration.

Now, for the actual discussion. I must say that my anti-Cabal position has taken a hit with Mr. A's latest tweets about the fictites' memories of their deaths. This may be the epiphany Screen was talking about - I'd say dying is a major enough event to consider if you lived your life right. There is, however, a problem with that: Moriarty, from what I've seen, is still asocial (Morgana's words), incooperative (Morgana's words) and psychotic (echo). I don't know about Don Juan, as we didn't even get to talk to him.

That still doesn't change my position about the refics, anyway. You know my reasoning, and I won't back down until Mr. A says "WE HAVE PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT ON A SUB-UNIVERSE, AND YOURS IS ACTUALLY TOTALLY SAFE. SEAL THE WALL AND WE'RE DONE. THE CABAL STILL STINKS".

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Okay, I'm not interested in pointlessly furthering the who-is-right-A-or-the-Cabal debate, because as things currently stand, it's all been said. Here, however, is something that HASN'T been said:

screenstorming wrote:That "quickest fix" approach reminds me of psychiatrists that spend 15 minutes with a case, apply some simplistic evaluation and rules, and move on, without delving deeper to the person's actual background and circumstances, and potential futures that their diagnosis or punishment/treatment/solution will feed into.

Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? Do you have any background knowledge of the field of psychiatry? Because that is NOT WHAT PSYCHIATRISTS DO. Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. FIRST of all, a psychiatrist's first meeting with a new patient is generally longer than the average appointment, and spent entirely or mostly getting THE PATIENT'S BACKGROUND. Not to mention all the records of previous psychiatric history that the doctor will have seen, and READ, before that appointment. Psychiatrists do not apply "simplistic evaluations" any more than oncologists apply "simplistic evaluations". Psychiatry is not about "treating" symptoms, and not necessarily "solving" problems, and I don't know how the HELL you can think it's about "punishing"... ANYTHING. what is this i don't even.

Psychiatrists are DOCTORS. They HELP people. PROPERLY. Sometimes with medication, sometimes with CBT or other types of therapy, sometimes just by listening and giving advice. But ALWAYS with proper understanding and knowledge of the situation. Because they're doctors, and that's what doctors have to do.

Qara, I apologize. That paragraph started out as a longer one that linked into the question of law and authority in general, and I'm *trying* to write shorter posts, and not come across like I'm writing unreadable essays, so I Cut The Knot and edited it down poorly and didn't think through its implications well. I really screwed up in the process.

Please let me try to explain what I meant. I don't want to destroy the beginnings of friendships I might have begun to create here, just like the rest of you want to keep yours intact. I'm trying to learn how I can contribute with what I have to offer, and I guess whether there's even a place for me here.

First, I actually have a lot of familiarity with psychiatry and related fields. I've seen a number of those professionals, often being misunderstood by them, and I've studied the field itself a lot, including the broader questions of people's minds, how the brain works, and how people interpret each other and the world in general. The whole area of diagnosis actually has a lot of overlap with tropes -- they're about categories, and sometimes they're subverted, right?

So, why did I bring up psychiatry? Because it has relevance to understanding the minds of others, advising and persuading them, and even helping them with their problems or to achieve their potential. Many psychiatrists do really get to know their patients, and some do types of therapy and education that go beyond CBT. One that I've learned a lot from is Dan Siegel, who studies interpersonal neurobiology, and is a big advocate for people's ability to grow and change. I've also learned a lot from my own interactions with psychiatrists and other therapists, friends, and simply people in general, as well. Jane McGonical is another great example, showing how games and story can help save and transform people's lives.

The truth is, neither psychiatrists nor anyone else ALWAYS has all the information to have a proper understanding of a situation. There are limits to what you can learn thorough an intake interview, or even extended therapy sessions, especially when operating under the wrong assumptions. Likewise, even a long series of of tweets, emails and chats, whether between metaguards, or with Mr. A or Morgan, or with GMs can have all kinds of limits and problems, as Poor Communication Kills documents so well. And, it's even harder when people are Gambitting, Plotting, being deceptive, and taking sides in disputes!

And, because there is so little canon information here, it's a bit of a sandbox situation. It's possible some people on here appreciate these posts. I *try* to make them similar to tvtropes pages, which a lot of people *do* appreciate. I've learned to see tropes in more depth, just by writing them. But I feel bad about the feedback that I'm being a pain to others. What should I do? It poses a risk to break convention, post things, try to share my thoughts, and hope something clicks, that it's worth it in the end. The crazy thing is, sometimes I do get appreciation and even extended dialogue, while other times I'm treated like a mental patient, or at least complete annoyance.

The challenge of putting yourself in another person's shoes goes beyond psychiatry, and into friendships and family and work relationships, and even to understanding characters in stories. I feel like this is so important, when the same arguments and problems keep occurring over and over, and there are time constraints and limits on patience all around. So, again, what am I to do here?

[Throughout much of my life, I've had no one to connect with on these meta questions -- even things like tropes -- but I've started to find some people who appreciate some of it, even if I have a lot to learn about being succinct. I'm trying to change and adapt, and getting feedback helps. Sorry again, Qara, for hitting your Berserk Button. I do respect psychiatrists, but I think they could do even better work with trope savvyness and the vocabulary it offers. ]

I do feel a bit for screen. There are a few psychiatrists, utterly incompetent, true, who may well do that kind of thing. Certain (very few) inexpert GOs within our NHS may well do this kind of thing, it occurs to me. Unfortunately. Also, the words 'Antonio Egas Moniz', 'prefrontal lobotomy', and 'electro convulsive therapy' spring to mind.

Dryunya wrote:First, Wacky (and Screen), seriously, that's not how a therapist should work. If yours was like this, he's incompetent as hell.

screenstorming wrote:There's always Epiphany Therapy. That may seem unbelievable, but if someone is written to be a villain, as in, set up to be, by their parents, their mentors, their authors, and then shown a different path, it might not take years to change, given the right circumstances. There are real-life examples of people changing pretty drastically when their situation goes from being oppressive and horrible to something that better fits who they are, and gives them a chance to grow.

I actually considered including that trope into my argument. Did you even read it? It is explicitly pointed out to be a trope, which rarely works IRL. Of course, there are unique cases, but what are the chances to stumble upon one?

screenstorming wrote:Regardless of the wall issue, and certainly regardless of

Now, for the actual discussion. I must say that my anti-Cabal position has taken a hit with Mr. A's latest tweets about the fictites' memories of their deaths. This may be the epiphany Screen was talking about - I'd say dying is a major enough event to consider if you lived your life right. There is, however, a problem with that: Moriarty, from what I've seen, is still asocial (Morgana's words), incooperative (Morgana's words) and psychotic (echo). I don't know about Don Juan, as we didn't even get to talk to him.

That still doesn't change my position about the refics, anyway. You know my reasoning, and I won't back down until Mr. A says "WE HAVE PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT ON A SUB-UNIVERSE, AND YOURS IS ACTUALLY TOTALLY SAFE. SEAL THE WALL AND WE'RE DONE. THE CABAL STILL STINKS".

Dryunya wrote:First, Wacky (and Screen), seriously, that's not how a therapist should work. If yours was like this, he's incompetent as hell.

screenstorming wrote:There's always Epiphany Therapy. That may seem unbelievable, but if someone is written to be a villain, as in, set up to be, by their parents, their mentors, their authors, and then shown a different path, it might not take years to change, given the right circumstances. There are real-life examples of people changing pretty drastically when their situation goes from being oppressive and horrible to something that better fits who they are, and gives them a chance to grow.

I actually considered including that trope into my argument. Did you even read it? It is explicitly pointed out to be a trope, which rarely works IRL. Of course, there are unique cases, but what are the chances to stumble upon one?

Yeah, I've read the trope. I said "that may seem unbelievable" for a reason. I dispute the way tvtropes (and most TV) frames the issue -- as if it's either Epiphany Therapy or There Are No Therapists -- which is the dichotomy that fits how many people think about people's minds and Character Development: the One in a Million Epiphany, or the "never gonna happen"/"people never change." idea. (Or, the Epiphany with a Reset Button the next week, or the next episode.)

Really, that idea that "therapy takes years" can blind people to effective changes that can be made in shorter periods of time. I've I've seen "therapy takes years" used as a wholesale excuse for why it's not worth trying to change, or why psychological concepts have no relevance to immediate situations. Often, it's those immediate situations, *not* in therapy, that provide the greatest epiphanies.

And yet, epiphanies alone don't completely transform a person -- there are many layers that might change, stay the same, or even cycle. Beliefs, habits, preferences, identities, intentions -- these can all fluctuate a lot. People can become more evil, or more corrupt, or more degenerate, which adds another set of dimensions to the concept of a Dynamic Character.

Dryunya wrote:

screenstorming wrote:Regardless of the wall issue, and certainly regardless of the fictionals, there are *many* risks to the population at large, that Mr. A and others may be discounting in favor of a wild theory. Again, Mr. A's claims have been elevated to the level of assumed truth, and used as premises for arguments, despite underlying disagreement, because it makes the decision calculus simpler and avoids bitter disagreements that everyone's looking to keep buried (until the last minute, or until they get dug up by the plot itself.)

Dude, I know weren't here from the beginning, but if you paid attention, those "bitter disagreements" have been discussed to no end. There's no Elephant In The Living Room. The problem is simple: Mr. A says that not restoring the Status Quo may have disastrous consequences, but he knows nothing more because of lack in data (seriously, how often do you experience situations like this?). He tried to find proof (and so did we - we even tried to ask the Cabal to help, but that didn't stick), and he failed. We have nothing but his premonitions, that's the GMs' position. Period.And yes, I'm basing my reasoning on his words, because of mathematical risk evaluation. I won't go over this again.

I understand your position. As for how often I experience concerned authorities issuing threats and demands based on a shaky suspicion, so the Status Quo can remain God, or so they don't risk their own interests? I'd say much of the world operates like that, but it may not be sustainable, especially when authorities find themselves in an echo chamber, in a changing world, full of stories, and tradeoffs over which to believe.

Dryunya wrote:Now, for the actual discussion. I must say that my anti-Cabal position has taken a hit with Mr. A's latest tweets about the fictites' memories of their deaths. This may be the epiphany Screen was talking about - I'd say dying is a major enough event to consider if you lived your life right. There is, however, a problem with that: Moriarty, from what I've seen, is still asocial (Morgana's words), incooperative (Morgana's words) and psychotic (echo). I don't know about Don Juan, as we didn't even get to talk to him.

That still doesn't change my position about the refics, anyway. You know my reasoning, and I won't back down until Mr. A says "WE HAVE PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT ON A SUB-UNIVERSE, AND YOURS IS ACTUALLY TOTALLY SAFE. SEAL THE WALL AND WE'RE DONE. THE CABAL STILL STINKS".

Haha, yeah death or near-death experiences can be quite an epiphany. Better to think a bit ahead, no?

Morgana, at least, is cooperative and talking and looking to help out, whatever that might make possible. She's sitting around, with free will, looking for something meaningful to do that could influence her fate -- the So What Do We Do Now? after winning one cycle of the Journey, and facing the freight train of that epiphany called Death (or an even worse fate.)

Hopefully a tweet like that from Mr. A can happen, and/or a non-Evils of Free Will approach can be taken to refic (which is why I think that issue is worth digging further into, at least in terms of characters' sense of narrative identity.)

Dryunya wrote:<...> The problem is simple: Mr. A says that not restoring the Status Quo may have disastrous consequences, but he knows nothing more because of lack in data (seriously, how often do you experience situations like this?). <...>

I understand your position. As for how often I experience concerned authorities issuing threats and demands based on a shaky suspicion, so the Status Quo can remain God, or so they don't risk their own interests? I'd say much of the world operates like that, but it may not be sustainable, especially when authorities find themselves in an echo chamber, in a changing world, full of stories, and tradeoffs over which to believe.

By "situations like these" I meant "characters crossing over and the fourth wall breaking down". I'm saying that Mr. A has nothing to obtain the data from. That's all.

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

Alright guys, brief intermission from all this morallity rant. Now that the only echo remaining is Morgan's, I think anyone who still has gotten something to ask her, do so now, in case she really cuts off communication and the such.

Why should we do the right thing?-Well... because it's the right thing to do, there's no other good reason.

Am I a bad guy trying to be good, or a good guy trying to convince himself that he's not the bad guy?

Ok, the latest letter from Morgana says "neener-neener, told you the instability isn't our fault". I have no idea where she got it from, but I can take the hint. Mr. A is now "negotiating" whether leaving them here is possible, and I'm pretty sure it is (but I won't jump to conclusions).

Now, the morality issues. Moriarty is refictionalized, and the Cabal renounced him. That's pretty much the proof that goes against the Cabal's interest I was talking about. I can still put on my tinfoil hat and say that Morgana sacrificed Moriarty to redeem the Cabal in our eyes, but I find that quite unlikely.

So, considering that they tried to make it up to Joe and Joan, and the "Ends Justify The Means" attitude is a moot point when the crisis is over (and if it's not, the justice system is supposed to handle it), I see no problems with letting them stay if Mr. A says so. Meta: they'll abandon the Pheeble site and will go their merry way, hiding in the general populace. We won't be able to contact them, so the Status Quo is preserved.

All the less work for us, anyway.

I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.

Note: What follows is theorizing on a meta level, NOT just me being unreasonable:

Well, it does look like they're going to be able to stay... but meta, I don't think that can be the case, because-- like Dryu said-- less work for us. What's the point of suddenly NOT having to get Morgan's second echo, and suddenly NOT having to write refics for three characters? On the other hand, if they've come this far, and A admits they're not a danger, we can't very well refic them, can we?

But. Morgan said they will stand with whoever faces off with Cthulhu. And since A's already painted it as a Suicide Mission, a horrified part of me can't help imagining them betraying us at absolutely the worst time, letting that Metaguard die. I would just LOVE to be proved wrong on this-- it's just that it's my best theory on how to give us the incentive to refic them again.

Why are we even arguing about a dead fictional dude and hypothetical ninjas?